"Did Drone Attack Kill Innocents?" Topic

…He said some family members, including children, were in the car when it was hit. He contended that if there had been a bomb in the vehicle there would be far more damage to the courtyard and house. He pointed to two undamaged gas cylinders tucked away in a corner of the courtyard…

Military: link

Probably a random strike based on demographic data aka the Disposition Matrix.

This is exactly the problem with assassination of civilian targets- there is very little accountability. It is well documented that these strikes have caused massive civilian casualties and there is very little oversight or followup. It has been escalating in every administration since GWB and the public is largely oblivious to it. I expect this one will be no different.

And we wonder where all the resentment stems from. Easier to just blame "terrorism" than look at the systems that create violent resistance.

Might as well hunt insurgent leaders with an artillery strike.

If you're going to use drones like an impersonal video game, that's what you can expect.
And that's also the problem with dealing with insurgents who hide with the people. What did Chairman Mao say about fish?
If you don't have the stomach to deal with "collateral damage", you shouldn't be getting involved.
Pack it up and go home to keep your conscience clear.
If you get that upset about Bad Guys running free, there's always the Dresden or Hiroshima option. It's the Western Way of War. VDH would be so proud.

Drone strikes just may create more terrorists than they kill. The devil is in the details and of course both sides will spin spin the narrative for propaganda.

In my mind Dresden and Hiroshima are quite different. One I approve and not the other. The two atomic bombs decisively ended the war with Japan and probably saved many lives on both sides by preventing a mainland invasion of Japan. The fire bombing of Dresden served no direct military purpose. I recall something about ball bearing factories, which may have been a legitimate target very early in the war, but at that late stage had no material impact on the German war machine.

Anytime you are involved in an insurgency by it's very nature, you can expect some CD. No matter how much you try to avoid and the USA does.

But as in all warfare there will be errors made. Sadly this was one of those times. I wish somehow this couldn't happen … but it does.

After the ISIS attack on the US troops at the Kabul airport. Cost us 13 good servicemembers. This airport in/next to an urban area, with one runway was a position completely indefensible in the current situation.

So it does not surprise me this type of thing will happen.

Might as well hunt insurgent leaders with an artillery strike.

If they are in range and CD will be limited … it probably has happened.

This is exactly the problem with assassination of civilian targets

Enemy terrorists of any type are not civilians. Killing terrorist is not an assassination. E.g. Iran's Gen Suilimani.

Were UBL or Al Baghdadi civilians ?

They were not part of any nation's military.

But they by their actions make them enemy combatants and in turn viable targets. As was Iran's Suilimani.

And we wonder where all the resentment stems from.

You mean like after 9/11 ? There was a lot of resentment if you were an American.

You mean after the beheadings of Americans by AQ & ISIS ?

Fingers can be pointed both ways …

Insurgents who can hide among the people are usually more popular with the people than those trying to hunt them down. Otherwise, it's just plain old civil war. The US just never stops to think why it keeps killing civilians, because, at the end of the day, it doesn't care. If it doesn't get so bad that the media can't ignore it and turn public sentiment against the effort, it doesn't matter to the MIC.

Soldiers since Smedley Butler have pointed out that American war is largely just a scam (Ike called out the same crap), but we just keep doing it and insist the piles of dead bodies are justified. Of course what they never say out loud is that the trillions of dollars of public money taken is the justification.

Of course there are also plenty that are happy to throw money and lives away to make sure those dirty communists/terrorists/foreigners/whatever die; never underestimate the raw bloodthirstiness of some Americans.

Insurgents who can hide among the people are usually more popular with the people than those trying to hunt them down.

That is classic insurgent tactics … Hiding among non-combatants. This is well known …

killing civilians, because, at the end of the day, it doesn't care.

Again if the US was not concerned about CD there would be places on the planet that would look like the Dark side of the Moon. Without using WMDs … Just a lot of HE.

Smedley Butler have pointed out that American war is largely just a scam (Ike called out the same crap)

Yes that is well known as well … But for some reason those that are elected or appointed officials always seem to miss the point at times.

never underestimate the raw bloodthirstiness of some Americans.

Or don't you mean AQ ? Or ISIS ? US troops follow ROEs. We don't make killing civilians a policy … Terrorists/jihadis purposely target civilians.

There is a difference …

Every innocent civilian death is a tragedy.
These drone strikes, though, over the years have saved countless US and allied lives by preempting planning, attacks, suicide bombs, etc. The vast majority going un-noted by the general public. They have undoubtable saved more civilian deaths than they have inadvertently caused as well.
The protocols that are followed before a strike are very strict.

Unfortunately they tend to get a bad rap because of their apparent impersonal, video game-like nature, and the almost unsporting nature of the operations. And any behind the lines civilian deaths are going to be exploited to the max for propaganda reasons.

Overall they've been a huge boon to modern asymmetric warfare.

Every innocent civilian death is a tragedy.

Very much so. No one denies that unless you are the Taliban, AQ, ISIS, etc.

These drone strikes, though, over the years have saved countless US and allied lives by preempting planning, attacks, suicide bombs, etc. The vast majority going un-noted by the general public. They have undoubtable saved more civilian deaths than they have inadvertently caused as well.
The protocols that are followed before a strike are very strict.

Oh stop being logical, using reason, facts, common sense, etc. You must not be one of those "bloodthirsty Americans", that are talked about … 😁

Unfortunately they tend to get a bad rap because of their apparent impersonal, video game-like nature, and the almost unsporting nature of the operations. And any behind the lines civilian deaths are going to be exploited to the max for propaganda reasons.

Very true and as we know classic insurgent warfare.

Overall they've been a huge boon to modern asymmetric warfare.

"And for one bright shining moment the universe all made sense …" 🌌 👍👍🖖 So very, very, true. If don't have to risk my troops lives & limbs … then don't …

I wonder how people will react if and when there is a peer level war where both sides employ drone strikes? The average person in the first world opines on drone strikes while not being subject to them. There is nothing the nations where we conduct drone strikes can do to prevent them.

I wonder what attitudes would be like if, while we drone strike enemies, they are drone striking us? Is it just an odd modern version of the strategic bombing of WW2? How will civilian attitudes change if the drone strike is in their neighborhood or in their town? I wonder how the somewhat dismissive attitude people mostly display when it is happening in Whereverstan will change when it happens in their locale instead?

Perhaps, assuming the report is true, which it may well be, but then again it may not.

Of course, I'm reminded by all the lies from their region, and ours of late too.

I recall not too long ago, a large funeral for numerous Hezbollah, and/or Hamas people killed during one of their uprisings with Israel.

During the video proceedings, some of the pall-bearers tripped and fell, miraculously causing many/most of the "dead" being carried to instantly revive, and run off in all the confusion and excitement.

So, you can't always believe what you read, or even see on video.

I recall not too long ago, a large funeral for numerous Hezbollah, and/or Hamas people killed during one of their uprisings with Israel.

During the video proceedings, some of the pall-bearers tripped and fell, miraculously causing many/most of the "dead" being carried to instantly revive, and run off in all the confusion and excitement.

The funeral was a fake in Jordan to get around covid restrictions. link

Actually, the one I'm thinking of was conducted in the pre-Covid era, so it appears these ARE pretty common.

I think it was in Gaza, after the Israelis killed a bunch of jihadis after the latter attacked them again, and then the Israelis retaliated a few years ago – more than 3+ years, or so ago, IIRC.

I wonder how people will react if and when there is a peer level war where both sides employ drone strikes?

The "enemy" in some cases are using drones now. Until they can fly or be transported to the West. Which may/could occur. We have nothing to worry about, save of radicalize locals. But AFAIK none of the jihadis/terrorists have anything like a Predator or Reaper Drone, at least not yet ?

The average person in the first world opines on drone strikes while not being subject to them.

As I said … not yet. However they have small arms, MGs, mortars, FA, RPGs, RR, etc. And so do we in one form or another.

So if say US civilians were subject to drone attacks we some how would be appalled by it we would stop using them ? What next … small arms ?

When it comes to jihadis killing civilians in our homeland. They have used a variety if "weapons"/devices. E.g. 747s, trucks, knives, HE/bombs, etc. Sadly they seem to be doing pretty good at killing us at home. At least they did.

I can't imagine stop using a critical effective weapon like Drones. Because we may be targeted by them too.

From my POV as a former Grunt, I love the advantage drones give the ground forces, etc.,. When used in support of any type of mission. E.g. taking out a car full of HE before it could shutdown our evac ops, as we see happened currently.

How will civilian attitudes change if the drone strike is in their neighborhood or in their town?

So we'd say you can't use drones because they might kill civilians ? Both/all sides use weapons that could kill civilians.

I don't think the military will give up the advantage of the drone because it may kill non-combatants. Many weapons can kill humans civilian or military.

Again the US tries to void CD … but I already "opined" on this.

I don't think taking away the ability to use drones while the enemy can/does. That is a total misunderstanding the nature of modern warfare. For better or worse.

In the military … we don't like an even fight. We like combat multipliers, at lease 3-1 to one in the attack, etc., etc. No we don't fight fare. Regardless we attempt to avoid CD. But as we know it's situational on many occasions.

More importantly, do they take out the guilt?

Every innocent civilian death is a tragedy.
These drone strikes, though, over the years have saved countless US and allied lives by preempting planning, attacks, suicide bombs, etc. The vast majority going un-noted by the general public. They have undoubtable saved more civilian deaths than they have inadvertently caused as well.

I seriously doubt it.

Do you seriously believe old Ahmed is really planning an attack on Orlando Florida from a village in Pakistan with no running water or electricity?

He might be planning to place an IED to take out an ANA convoy in neighbouring Afghanistan or even to shoot up some local Christians.

And if Ahmed is planning something, then simply stop him getting off the plane or liaise with the Pakistani government and have him arrested and charged.

Blowing up him and 15 other random people at a wedding won't really change things.

---

Now Ahmed's cousin Abdullah is another thing. He is actually sitting in a cheap apartment in Orlando having obtained a student visa. He hates the west with a passion. He is planning an attack on some western target. He's already brought a big knife from Walmart or rented a truck from U-Haul or brought/obtained a cheap Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II (AR15 clone) with several hundred rounds of ammo or a cheap second hand Glock 17.

But you can't really fire a Hellfire into a cheap Orlando apartment now can you?

The protocols that are followed before a strike are very strict.

The protocols are based on a thing called Disposition Matrix which literally generates targets based on demographic and other factors but not necessarily any imminent threat.

Eg You're a young Yemeni man aged 27. You come from a village that is known to be sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Your cousin is a known militant or even sympathiser. Your cousin visited your family last Tuesday to congratulate you on your betrothal. You saw him 2 weeks ago too when he was visiting his parents and spent a couple of hours joking around cause you get along well with him.

And that's enough to get a Hellfire slammed on to you when you go out to do a dump whilst minding the family's flock of sheep.

Sure there's times when it was big wig confirmed terrorist/(usually militant) leader. But most of the time the targets are sorted out via Disposition Matrix.

Forgot to mention some of the people that have been targets of drone strikes include journalists and peace activists or critics of US policy. This includes a CNN affiliated journalist who was targeted by drone strikes, survived and has since filed a lawsuit requesting he be taken off the Disposition Matrix.

And for all of you supporting what are illegal killings, would you sanction drone strikes on US/western citizens in the actual US/west?

"Jim, (Ottawa, Kansas) hung out with Bob at a BBQ hosted by Marty from work. Bob has some weird ideas and runs an anti-government blog but is funny as hell and a swell guy. According to Marty Bob might be in with some unsavoury types who are real radical."

Now if these 3 lived in Pakistan or Yemen or whatever hellhole, they're likely to get Hellfired. Would it be legitimate for them to be Hellfired in USA even if Bob was planning some evil stuff?

----

Domestic and international policing, and immigration control stops terrorism not blowing up people at weddings which is arguably state based terrorism.

More importantly, do they take out the guilt?

Depends on the Drone pilot & gunner, like any other "shooter" on the battlefield, I guess ?

But you can't really fire a Hellfire into a cheap Orlando apartment now can you?

Well you could … but …

Blowing up him and 15 other random people at a wedding won't really change things.

Probably not … but might save some other lives in the short run. E.g. my troops, my comrades, my allies, etc. No way to really know …

And that's enough to get a Hellfire slammed on to you when you go out to do a dump whilst minding the family's flock of sheep.

happens …

Sure there's times when it was big wig confirmed terrorist/(usually militant) leader.

That is the target you are looking/hoping for. Killing off enemy leadership is always a priority.

Domestic and international policing, and immigration control stops terrorism not blowing up people

Its not just a Law Enforcement job. The military has a big part too. But it has to used correctly, yes … in COIN. And that is always not that easy either. And No nation building. We should have learned that from SE Asia.

You can't just rely on LEOs. Plus as we know if it were that easy and there was due diligence, etc. No terrorists would leave the airport, bus, etc. But with open borders , reduced LEOs, etc., … the entire plan is in the toilet. Which again comes down to poor leadership IMO from the very top.

We wouldn't want to get positive control of our Southern border and be called racists, xenophobic, islamophobic, white supremacists, etc., etc.

Can't have that …

Probably not … but might save some other lives in the short run. E.g. my troops, my comrades, my allies, etc. No way to really know …

Most of the time there's no US troops present on the ground save special forces who the locals probably aren't aware are there!

These drone strikes aren't Close Air Support. They're operating in countries that technically don't even have a formal US military presence.

And in any case if your troops are there (eg Afghanistan) then they're the bad guys to them. You're an occupying force like the Nazis or the French/Americans in Indo-China or the British burning the White House in 1812.

If you're not there, you're not getting attacked are you?

Bleeped text happens …

I guess they feel the same when some Americans step on an IED eh?

We wouldn't want to get positive control of our Southern border and be called racists, xenophobic, islamophobic, white supremacists, etc., etc..

Except you're playing politics.

Most Islamic terrorists are legal immigrants.

Eg Saturday's knife attack in New Zealand was legally in New Zealand on a legitimate refugee visa. At the time they were trying to deport him cause he was highlighted as a threat but the legal system is unfortunately not very responsive to this kind of stuff as it's basically a 18-19th century system).

9-11 terrorists had all entered the US legally. Etc etc.

its not just a Law Enforcement job. The military has a big part too

There's no role whatsoever for the military. Military involvement is just positive propaganda for the terrorists.

Eg there were some Pakistani elders in tribal areas pushing for peace talks in their neck of the wood. US drone strike killed 40 locals at a wedding. The tribal elders went from being pro-peace to declaring a blood feud on the USA.

It literally pushed whole communities to supporting jihadis.

Most of the time there's no US troops present on the ground save special forces who the locals probably aren't aware are there!

In 134 countries[unclassified number] SF & CIA are considered "troops" IMO …

These drone strikes aren't Close Air Support. They're operating in countries that technically don't even have a formal US military presence.

It depends … drones can be used for CAS based on the situation, etc.

And in any case if your troops are there (eg Afghanistan) then they're the bad guys to them. You're an occupying force like the Nazis or the French/Americans in Indo-China or the British burning the White House in 1812.

If you're not there, you're not getting attacked are you?

Nothing new there … we all know that …

I guess they feel the same when some Americans step on an IED eh?

I'm sure they do … and not US troops … UK, French, etc. It was a NATO mission for the most part.

Except you're playing politics.

I'm not … that is the way politicians, the media, etc., play the game. I think it is moronic.

Most Islamic terrorists are legal immigrants.

And there is the rub … How does that happen ?

9-11 terrorists had all entered the US legally. Etc etc.

Yes, we all know that. Again … how does that happen ?

There's no role whatsoever for the military. Military involvement is just positive propaganda for the terrorists.

Again SF & even CIA are troops, IMO. When we go to a failed state to hunt down terrorists and their leaders. E.g. UBL, Al Baghdadi, etc., etc. That seems to be a military mission. They already have positive propaganda. From the terrorist already there. Many also see it on the net. I think this link explains the role of the Military in combatting terrorism much better than I.

I know it quotes some US GENs, etc., but we know your comments, etc. seems like you know more, etc., than those in military … yes ? 🤔 You tell me and others that all the time.🤨 So I'm almost beginning to believe it… 😏 Guess I'm just a stupid former Grunt. 🥴😵

From the link :

This point was clarified in a statement made by retired Army General Barry R. McCaffrey. In the words of General McCaffrey, "US armed forces and our allies can play a role in neutralizing, disrupting, and destroying terrorist base areas…. The armed forces will play a central role in keeping the terrorist leadership and bases focused on their own survival; preventing them from having the time and the intellectual energy to regain control of their worldwide network and plan further terrorist assaults."

"Special operations forces are trained to work "by, with, and through" partner forces, which generally makes them the provider of choice for building partner capacity."[8] With respect to counterterrorism, "building partner capacity can involve deploying US Army Special Forces and other units to train, advise, and assist local security forces and build the capacity of local governments to provide services, secure their populations, and deal with the causes of terrorism in their countries."

the role of the US military has been the critical instrument in counterterrorism efforts to confront a host of terrorist groups. Operating under disparate presidential strategies, beginning with Al Qaeda, the affiliates of the former-bin Laden led transnational terrorist group, through the current conflict with the Islamic State, the US military has confronted terrorists in their sanctuaries, killed and captured numerous high value leaders through airstrikes and SOF raids.

there is no doubt the military maintains the skillsets and leadership to confront terrorism, but are the civilian leaders prepared to support them until the mission objective is completed? Unfortunately, there have been several US president's that have undercut the mission, either through inadequate strategies and the premature withdrawal of US forces.

Based on those comments from those smarter than I … I'm a total believer in the role of the US Military hunting down and killing terrorists/jihadis …

--------------------------------------------------------------

Pakistani elders in tribal areas

Yes that incident is well known. Again mistakes happen in war, we try to limit or avoid CD. But as we see & know that is always not possible.

In 134 countries[unclassified number] SF & CIA are considered "troops" IMO …

As I mentioned, if your spec ops/CIA are taking fire they have screwed up and it's mission failure.

It depends … drones can be used for CAS based on the situation, etc.

Most the time it's assassinations based on a computer generated kill list. If Russia whacked American allies/lackeys like this, you'd be completely outraged and call the Russians murderers.

I know you like to defend your government and its horrible little destabilising military operations, but there is a thing called reality.

I'm sure they do … and not US troops … UK, French, etc. It was a NATO mission for the most part.

No, it was an American mission with a NATO component.

And in any case they were viewed by occupiers by many.

Again SF & even CIA are troops, IMO. When we go to a failed state to hunt down terrorists and their leaders.

They're not just there to hunt bad guys. If you have read anything about the history of the CIA you'd know they are there to destroy regimes the US (or the CIA as occasionally CIA interests have clashed with overt US government ones eg in Laos or Syria) doesn't like even if they're democratically elected.

CIA is essentially a bunch of out of control bad guys who even spy on US Congress.

I have no pity for dead CIA paramilitaries or their Spec Ops brethren.

Based on those comments from those smarter than I … I'm a total believer in the role of the US Military hunting down and killing terrorists/jihadis …

US general opinions are completely discredited and worthless. They have contributed to forever wars, lots of dead Americans, lots of dead other people and have destabilised many societies.

And these guys still haven't learned anything from Vietnam when their "kill quotas" and indiscriminate bombardment didn't stop Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia falling under Communist control.

They haven't learned from Afghanistan or Iraq cause you still have people like former Generals McMasters and Patreus pushing to stay in Afghanistan.

In 20 years the US and its pet generals have squandered a massive opportunity and have done more to hurt western interests than the Chinese, Russians or Iranians combined.

Ask yourself this, if killing jihadis is sooooo important to protecting Americans then:

1. Why did US topple secular anti-jihadist Iraqi regime and thus empower jihadis in that country (eg the ones who killed so many Marines in Fallujah)?

2. Why did US destroy Libya and turn it into a haven for jihadis and one that has literally facilitated explosive growth of extremism in sub Saharan Africa?

3.Why did US try to destroy Syria and turn it into a haven for jihadis? CIA literally sourced Croatian weapons to sell to Saudis who then used them to arm jihadis.

4. Why does USA turn a blind eye to its allies (Turkey, KSA, UAE, Qatar, Pakistan) supporting jihadis? Hell it's clear Taliban's biggest allies are Qatar and Pakistan, both US allies.

5. Why did USA allow Al Qaeda to overrun large parts of Yemen in their war against the Houthis?

You probably can't answer it because in reality US foreign and military policy is schizophrenic, fragmented, grudge driven and basically stupid.

It's why the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Turks etc have been eagerly been carving up huge chunks of the pie. The US is flapping around like a drunken sailor trying to swat flies.

if your spec ops/CIA are taking fire they have screwed up and it's mission failure.

They like me and my troops would like the support if we need it … Wouldn't you ?

but there is a thing called reality.

Yes there is … but that seems conditional, etc.

you'd be completely outraged and call the Russians murderers.

And nothing would change anyway …

CIA is essentially a bunch of out of control bad guys who even spy on US Congress.

You say that like it is a bad thing … You forgot to mention the FBI too …

I have no pity for dead CIA paramilitaries or their Spec Ops brethren.

I'm sure they wouldn't have any pity for you either. Anytime any US agents and Spec Ops take loses I find that sad but they did their duty. What more could be said ? But I'm sure you will find a way to say more.

US general opinions are completely discredited and worthless.

Based on my experience I think you are painting with a very big brush. But you always do when it comes to villains from the USA …

former Generals McMasters and Patreus pushing to stay in Afghanistan.

They may of had a point … but we will see … Too late anyway … This last disaster will put the US leadership and the USA in general down a few pegs. We may not recover … The PRC/CCP will replace the USA as the "top dog", so to speak. Looks like they had a good start anyway.

Ask yourself this, if killing jihadis is sooooo important to protecting Americans then:

Well on a tactical level it was, IMO. However all those other questions you posed. It seems some of those may not all be quite true, AFAIK … But that is another very long answer that I'd be wasting my time … as you already know the answers, anyway … The USA screwed up …

in reality US foreign and military policy is schizophrenic, fragmented, grudge driven and basically stupid.

Well it seems you again know all the answers so why should I even try to reply. But I do like grudge driven !

No, it was an American mission with a NATO component.

So is pretty much every other large NATO or UN mission … No USA … no real mission. I guess the PRC/CCP will have to fill the void.

So now that the USA has been removed from the top tier. A'stan had proved be the US's swan song, the last nail in the coffin, etc. It will soon be the USSA. Will you be attacking China, Russia, Iran, etc., without mercy ? But they are without sin, you know …?

hey like me and my troops would like the support if we need it … Wouldn't you ?

If I was in charge of a country, I would not be deploying troops in dozens of forever wars in the first place.

You say that like it is a bad thing … You forgot to mention the FBI too …

Yes it's a bad thing to have intelligence agencies spy on the government they are meant to be accountable to!

It undermines democracy and it means the agency is a power unto itself. It's extremely dangerous as it gives too much power to a single unelected agency.

They may of had a point

Staying there forever? Might as well make Afghanistan the 51st state.

While you're at it make Iraq 52nd and all of Africa/Middle East states as well.

However all those other questions you posed. It seems some of those may not all be quite true,

How are they not true? This stuff is well covered in the media and relevant academia and think tanks.

Somehow you think if a US general says it, then it's true but if the National Interest or BBC or Australian Strategic Policy Institute says it then it's false?

So is pretty much every other large NATO or UN mission … No USA on real mission

Totally incorrect with regards to UN missions. US doesn't contribute anything to most UN peacekeeping missions. Most of the personnel is provided by third world states who use it as a source of income (Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Pakistan, Malaysia etc).

US doesn't even pay its UN bill on time – currently the US owes the UN nearly $2 USD billion..

Eg out of 20,458 UN peacekeepers assigned to DRC, only 3 are American. Largest contingents are Indian and Bangladeshi followed by various African states.

Or UNIFIL in Lebanon – largest contributors are Indonesia, India, Nepal, Ghana, Nepal and India.

UN peacekeeping operations have dwindled to a measly 13.

A lot of African missions are being handled by African states such as ECOMOG or African Union but are underwritten by UN.

The irony is that countries that often have active conflicts such as Nepal or Nigeria send troops to these kind of missions due to the income they generate.

---

NATO missions are generally American ones. NATO's contribution is often symbolic and designed to create illusion of consensus.

If I was in charge of a country, I would not be deploying troops in dozens of forever wars in the first place.

Easy to say when you are not in that situation …

well covered in the media and relevant academia and think tanks.

Well that alone gives me little confidence. E.g. media, academia and some think tanks. Who are in that academia & think tanks ? What is their military training and experience ? I know some do have military experience. But many don't … That works both ways.

Frankly I would not take much of your advise … as you are an academic with no military training or experience … Yet you want to tell those on the ground how to run ops ? Along with you are so sure that the military has no place in the war on terrorists. LEOs can't do it all … That is only common sense. I will take most US senior officers or even junior officers and Senior NCOs words over you or those like you.

Yes it's a bad thing to have intelligence agencies spy on the government they are meant to be accountable to!

That was hyperbole, regardless it has been going since JFK/RFK. I.e. Hoover's FBI …, etc.

Totally incorrect with regards to UN missions. US doesn't contribute anything to most UN peacekeeping missions.

Note I said LARGE UN missions … e.g. the Korean War, etc. We still flew the UN flag on our guard posts & FOB in the ROK in '84-'85.

Most of the personnel is provided by third world states who use it as a source of income (Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Pakistan, Malaysia etc).

Yes they are and they get paid for it … IIRC the US had the largest Force in Somalia …

due to the income they generate.

Again they get paid.

NATO missions are generally American ones. NATO's contribution is often symbolic and designed to create illusion of consensus.

And you say that like it is a surprise … The US Forces take order from the CinC … that is way it is supposed to work & does …

ardo, so much of what you've posted is just plain wrong, or totally misleading.

I haven't the time to waste in replying to and refuting ALL of your misstatements, but here's one for example (and yes, the USA has delayed payments to the UN, and even threatened to halt them from time to time, and yet we are by far the largest funder of the UN, sadly for the American taxpayers), showing the portion of funding paid to support the UN by the USA and other countries:

link

China is the next closest, though they only contribute about half of what the USA does.

We also house the UN on our territory, with ALL the expenses, trials, and tribulations associated with that.

The USA IS the most generous country on the planet, bar none, and a friend to many, despite your slanderous statements against it, and our people.

Many/most UN peacekeeping missions don't accomplish the mission they set out to achieve, and the soldiers assigned to them are frequently just clay pigeons in a shooting gallery due to inept "leadership" and poor policies – having the peacekeepers carry weapons without any bullets for them (they frequently get killed when that is in place).

ardo, so much of what you've posted is just plain wrong, or totally misleading.

Yes, I was trying to allude to that. But everyone is entitle to an opinion, right, wrong and in between.

Note I said LARGE UN missions … e.g. the Korean War, etc. We still flew the UN flag on our guard posts & FOB in the ROK in '84-'85.

Yes they are and they get paid for it … IIRC the US had the largest Force in Somalia …

Korea was 1950-53 and was part of Cold War (Soviets literally boycotted the sitting instead of vetoing it like they would today). They might fly a UN flag but the American troops there are not under UN auspices.

And Somalia was nearly 30 years ago.

As mentioned the larger missions these days have no or limited US presence eg DRC or Lebanon.

In fact total number of US troops assigned to ALL current UN peacekeeping operations is a measly 33:

link

So the world's most preeminent power contributes a grand total of a small platoon to an organisation that is meant to be part of the "rules based" global system the US purports to support.

We also house the UN on our territory, with ALL the expenses, trials, and tribulations associated with that.

Ah the legacy of history eh?

UN was pretty much a western idea led by Americans and when it was set up the US was (and still is) the preeminent western state.

At the time the UN was set up, most of the world was still under colonial rule.

Also most of Europe and Asia was destroyed and then you had the Rockerfellers sponsoring a lot of the New York build.

I suspect if a new UN HQ was set up, it would be in Switzerland and not the US.

Totally incorrect with regards to UN missions. US doesn't contribute anything to most UN peacekeeping missions. Most of the personnel is provided by third world states who use it as a source of income (Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Pakistan, Malaysia etc).

US doesn't even pay its UN bill on time – currently the US owes the UN nearly $2,000,000,000 USD .

Hmmm…
link

"The U.S. government contributed just over $11 USD billion to the United Nations in 2019, the most recent fiscal year with full data available. About 30 percent of this total was assessed and 70 percent was voluntary. This represents about one-fifth of the roughly $50 USD billion the United States spends annually on foreign aid. By comparison, that is about what the government allocates annually to the U.S. Coast Guard."

US contribution to DPKO in 2019 = $1.9 USD billion

True that the US contributes almost no UN boots on the ground peacekeepers, but a little known fact is the US has contributed one way or another to almost all UN PK operations – e.g., logistically (keep in mind that many UN troop contributing nations have next to no logistical capability for ops away from home), etc., but sometimes it has also included a carrier battlegroup floating offshore, just in case the UN forces get in trouble. {Sorry, I can't find the article with the info on the US contributions – it's been awhile ago but that fact stuck in my head.)

From the UN DPKO:

link

This is old, but it does include some references to historical US contributions (e.g, 5,000 police) to UN PK ops.

link

Note also the US contribution to train troops from countries that do provide PK forces.

Honesty, lightly, armed, boots-on-the-ground blue helmet PK forces is probably a misuse of the US combat troops which are very, very expensive.

Awhile back – when doing defence capability costing – I figured that sustaining one Canadian mech infantry section on station in a PK operation was about 50% of the entire Senegalese defence budget. Western peacekeepers are expensive.

Also, UN PK troops are no angels.

link

Korea was 1950-53 and was part of Cold War (Soviets literally boycotted the sitting instead of vetoing it like they would today). They might fly a UN flag but the American troops there are not under UN auspices.

And Somalia was nearly 30 years ago.

Yes … we learn from the past by studying it. The Troops in the Korean War were UN troops under US Command. And we flew the UN flag as it was a UN mission. And to remind the North … you may not have to only deal with the ROKs & US but other members of the UN.

In fact total number of US troops assigned to ALL current UN peacekeeping operations is a measly 33:

The US has it's priority for where it troops go. And that includes everywhere in the world. If someone else can take on the UN mission, they do. Besides, only 33 … reminds me of an old story from the American West.

A riot broke out in a town in TX. One TX Ranger rode up to handle the situation. The Mayor asked why only one Ranger showed up ? The Ranger said, "Well there is only one riot" … 🤠🐎

I suspect if a new UN HQ was set up, it would be in Switzerland and not the US.

Which would be fine with many here in the USA. But the PRC/CCP and Putin wouldn't like that. But again when you need top guns for a big UN mission … they would call on the USA.

"The U.S. government contributed just over $11 USD USD billion to the United Nations in 2019,

Shadoe don't confuse the thread with facts. Guys like ardo couldn't bash the USA otherwise as he knows how to handle everything and the USA does not … 😏 He and some others here should email the JCS, etc. 🤔

Too bad ardo can't become an American and run for Congress.

Or even POTUS.

But he can't do that …

Fortunately, up to now, our Presidents have not agreed to put our military personnel under UN control. I suspect congress would not go for that, nor would the American public.

Or course, with the new guy/gal/puppet-master in charge, I suspect all bets on that for the future could be up in the air.

No I doubt that will never happen … even with this current leaders … But …